19 December 2005
Rumsfeld Says U.S. Does Not Want to Remain in Iraq Indefinitely
Goal is to turn over responsibility as soon as security, politics allow
Washington – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said it is not a goal of the United States to remain in Iraq for the long term.
The United States went into Iraq “to replace the regime and turn that country back to the Iraqi people and that’s what’s going to happen,” he told a National Public Radio interviewer December 16, one day after Iraq’s parliamentary elections polls closed. That is what the Iraqis and the Americans want “and that’s what’s going to happen,” he said, “and that country is going to be vastly better off for it.”
Rumsfeld told NPR that falsehoods are being spread to suggest that the United States went into Iraq for its oil or, perhaps, to occupy the country on a permanent basis. “That’s utter nonsense,” he said.
“Life is far from perfect” in Iraq, said the defense secretary, but he also quoted an unnamed Iraq expert as saying the situation in Iraq “is just terrible, but [at the same time] it’s never been better.” Although acknowledging the continuing security problems, Rumsfeld pointed to a benefit that was not part of Iraq’s experience under Saddam Hussein: 100 functioning newspapers, 44 radio stations and dozens of television stations that are free to publish independently. In addition, he said, people are not being put in mass graves by their government. (See related article.)
The December 15 Council of Representatives elections brought together Iraqis who were able to argue, debate, discuss and carry out general politicking and the secretary said this evolution was thrilling. “The security situation controlled by the Iraqi security forces was done brilliantly,” he said, “and the people, for the first time, had a chance to vote for somebody that they wanted to put in public office.”
The Iraqi people have the right to be proud of these historic elections because the voter turnout was enormous, Rumsfeld said. Now they will be able to develop a constitution “that will keep them from fighting each other or imposing their will on each other,” he said. “The only thing that kept them from doing that in the past was a very dictatorial repressive regime,” he added.
In every interview Rumsfeld is asked the question about a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops, he ties his answer, in part, to the readiness of Iraqi forces to take over responsibility for the security of their country. But the answer, he said, is not bound by numbers or equipment requirements alone, because it is connected to softer issues such the leadership skills of junior and noncommissioned officers in the Iraqi forces.
Rumsfeld said a key question is whether an individual Iraqi ministry is sufficiently strong to carry out a competent chain of command. This is something that is difficult to quantify, he said, but can be just as important as the number of capable troops or the number of tanks on hand.
In another December 16 radio interview with conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, Rumsfeld said he is eager to see that the next Iraqi ministers of defense and interior “have the kind of competence and the breadth as leaders to see that those two important wartime ministries are functioning effectively so we can continue to pass off responsibility to the Iraqi security forces.”
Asked about the next steps in Iraq, Rumsfeld the December 15 elections results must be certified. After that, he said, it would take some time for the Council of Representatives to be seated. The initial process of selecting the Iraqi president and deputies, and then the prime minister and the leaders for the various other ministries will follow. “That will take some time,” the secretary said.
For additional information, see Iraq's Political Process.
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
